This post focuses on the
challenges organizations face when attempting to integrate social learning and
synthesizes some of the key concerns. Social
learning is much more a cultural outcome than a process or a program to be
followed. Organizations are fairly adept at implementing training programs,
providing LMS access and checking for completion. However, social learning
neither has a completion criteria nor can it be enforced. “Social learning” cannot
be assigned as one would a course or a module. Nor can one be sent off to
attend a class on social learning. So, social learning continues to loom like a
specter over L&D’s head, who are usually given the dictate of implementing
it.

On the face of it, social
learning is or at least should be the easiest thing to implement in the
workplace. Don’t we always turn to our colleagues when we are stuck? Don’t we
WhatsApp or message our not co-located peers for the latest proposal, solution,
client inputs? Then, why does social learning become the proverbial stumbling
block on every L&D team’s radar?

It is primarily because of the
way our organizations are structured and operate. The operational as well as
the cultural norms of a majority of our organizations date back to the days of
Taylor when standardization was a much sought after aspect to bring about
efficiency, reduce errors and shorten turnaround time. Organizations thrived on
predictability, best practices, efficiency and repeatability.

Now, fast forward
to the 21st Century bombarded by shifts in technology, changing nature
of work and an evolving workplace. The history of outsourcing to off-shoring to
automation is now well known. However, while technology advanced forcing us to
work differently, the human mindset and the accompanying organizational management
models did not. The evolution of the mind takes years, and we got stuck in a
time warp. Organizations like Kodak, Borders and Blockbuster faded into
irrelevance. Those who could embrace this technological onslaught thrived, and their
names are household words today. Amazon, Apple, Google, Netflix, Pandora… .

How is this change related to
social learning? In a profound and almost philosophical way. History tells us
that social learning has been the “only” way people learned in the past. The
only technology then available was the “fire” built outside caves and other
such places where the nomadic hunters of yore gathered at the end of the day to
share stories. Cave paintings are further proof of the visual skills and the
social nature of learning. People wanted to share what they knew in various
forms. Social learning is not a 21st century invention. Vygotsky and
Bandura’s theories dating back to the 1970’s explain the social nature of
learning in a great deal of detail. The fundamental pillars of social learning
have always been trust and a willingness to share and cooperate.

What we have lost today are
precisely the art of communicating with openness and trust. Cooperation and
collaboration to use Harold Jarche’s words. And this takes us back to Taylor,
command and control, hierarchy, and the other well-known and esteemed pillars
of modern day management. In an effort to mechanize processes and capitalize on
efficiency, the practices and principles that led to the rise of Industrial Age
organizations successfully killed the natural instincts of human beings – to
learn, to share, and to cooperate.

By propagating the treatment of
individuals as replaceable cogs, by reducing their humanity to naught,
organizations of that era thrived by de-humanizing the human. However, this “efficiency”
came at a price. The side effects of hierarchy and top down management – obsolete
principles, hunger for power and unnatural competitiveness – desensitized the
organizations. This has led to mistrust, cheating, shirking. Which in turn led
to a further tightening of the so-called processes, bureaucratic systems and
managerial oversight. Knowledge hoarding became one of the means of
accumulating power and staying in control. Skills were no longer freely shared.
“Social” became a bad word within the walls of the serious, process-oriented,
sanitized interiors of the corporate world.

Then came the 21st
century with its dramatic shifts and trends. The world has shifted and we are
in the midst of the Creative Economy, and organizations realize that they are
ill-prepared to face this change. Predictability gave way to complexity and
often, chaos. The five forces in the diagram below turned the old order upside
down.

Suddenly, the old order is no
longer functioning as well as they had done. Best practices no longer suffice. Exceptions
and novel challenges are the norm. There is no time to get trained for the
skills needed. Learning and working have become one and the same. New words and
concepts have cropped up – crowdsourcing, collaboration, digital skills, personal
learning network, social learning, social business. Organizations moved from being
a building in a fixed location to a distributed network of employees and geographically
dispersed offices. Collaboration and cooperation became vital to the survival
of the organization and the individual.

Organizations thus felt the
pressure to enable social learning and collaboration in some form. And jumped
onto the easiest of the bandwagons – that of new, glossy technology. New
platforms, new devices, uber connectivity. However, what most organizations forgot
is the culture change required. Organizations fell prey to the vendors of social
platforms believing that technology could solve the problem.

However, as organization after
organization floundered in their attempt to enable enterprise collaboration and
social learning, the phrase social
learning took on a slightly desperate note. It was something organizations
knew they had to do, but wasn't quite sure how to go about it. The general cry
was one of cynicism and despair. One half said, “See the platform is a ghost
town; no one writes even one line. I knew all these new-fangled ideas wouldn't work.” The other more believing and forward thinking half said, “Ok, so we have
a platform, and no one participates. Where did we go wrong?”

The truth of the matter is that a
platform is not the solution. Changing the organization culture is. Easier said
than done of course. How does one change years of built in mindset and handed
down wisdom? How does one convince managers and VPs to give up the very power
they worked so hard to achieve? How does one convince individuals victimized by
the Bell Curve, rewarded for being competitive, taught to hoard knowledge to
suddenly give up all these for wishy-washy words like trust, values,
collaboration and sharing?

IMHO, it is not only a question of organizational strategy but also of
organizational philosophy.

Changing from a command and
control, hierarchical set up to a networked and open wirearchy is neither easy
nor quick. It requires concentrated change management strategy that includes
above all, bringing the human back into the organization. It means
demonstrating trust, practising open sharing, following transparent processes.
It means being unafraid to fail without losing commitment to success. It means
redefining success criteria. It means being in alignment with one’s goals and
purpose. It means walking the talk – all the time. These statements are of
course easier to write down and sound pretty good on paper. However, when one
attempts to translate these into practices and manifested behaviours that will
make sense in an organizational set-up, suddenly one is confounded by the
existing processes and priorities that are most often in direct opposition to
the spirit of the statements.

To transition from a hierarchical
to a networked and transparent culture requires a conscious untangling of all
the unspoken assumptions and biases that inform the present culture and values.
Without an explicit understanding of the assumptions across the board, it is
not possible to change any one them. While culture is perhaps one of those make
or break things, there is really no defined framework or model for culture. It
is as elusive as it is org specific. Hence, culture can only be perceived from
the standpoint of manifested behaviours and actions taken by the top management
and the employees.

For social learning to thrive
(i.e., for individuals to share freely, work transparently, learn from each
other, critique without malice and so on), the culture must be supportive. What
does this mean? Here are a few changes organizations need to make if they truly
believe that social collaborative learning is the way to go:

Senior
management must walk the talk; if they don’t have time to engage on the
collaboration platform, the rest of the organization will not have the time either

Transparent
sharing of information must be the default mode; if employees cannot be trusted
with organizational information, then the wrong people have been recruited

Collaboration
and cooperation must be rewarded; if the measurement system continues to reward
competitive behaviour, then that is what will be perpetrated

Individuals
need to feel empowered; open and honest sharing cannot be driven by fear and a carrot and stick approach. Open and
honest sharing comes from employees feeling respected and appreciated.

Sharing
of knowledge is a discretionary effort; unappreciated employees will hold back
on their DE. Genuine appreciation, support and coaching need to define
management attitude.

In summary, integrating social learning in the workplace requires:

In-depth analysis of existing assumptions and biases

Critical assessment of the management model and methods

Honest look at what is holding people back from collaborating and sharing

Evaluation of the modes of reward and feedback being practised

Drawing up a desired future state vision (in collaboration with employees)

Defining of a clear change management strategy with special emphasis on management responsibilities

Implementation of the strategies with the leadership and top management "leading" the way

Redefining of processes and systems to support the change (adhering to the old rules while expecting new behaviour is not only counter-productive but also damaging)